LIETUVIŲ KALBOTYROS KLAUSIMAI, IV

LIETUVOS TSR MOKSLŲ AKADEMIJA

A NEW ETYMOLOGICAL DICTIONARY OF THE RUSSIAN LANGUAGE

A. SABALIAUSKAS

For more than fifty years, M. Fasmer has worked successfully in the field of linguistics. Such works by M. Fasmer as „Греко-славянские этюды“ (1909), „Studien zur albanesischen Wortforschung“ (1921), „Osteuropäische Ortsnamen“ (1921), „Untersuchungen über die ältesten Wohnsitze der Slaven I: Die Iranier in Südrussland“ (1923), „Wikingerspuren in Russland“ (1931), „Beiträge zur historischen Völkerkunde Osteuropas“ (1932—1936), „Die Slaven in Griechenland“ (1941), „Die alten Bevölkerungsverhältnisse Russlands“ (1941), and others, are well known to linguists, especially those who in one way or another encounter questions concerning Slavic studies or the linguistic relations of the peoples of Eastern Europe. However, all these works were in a sense preparatory studies for M. Fasmer’s magnum opus—the etymological dictionary of the Russian language¹. In both its scope and its factual material, this dictionary surpasses not only earlier etymological dictionaries of Russian, but those of the Slavic languages generally. M. Fasmer’s dictionary examines not only the origins of words in the Russian literary language, but also presents various dialect forms and proper names of places and persons, and explains archaisms in various monuments of the Russian language. The dictionary vividly reflects Russian’s relations with other neighboring languages, as well as with the languages of Western Europe. It gives not only loanwords and calques from foreign languages, but often also indicates the spread of Russian words in the languages of other peoples.

M. Fasmer’s dictionary is useful to researchers of the Baltic languages in various respects as well. The amount of space devoted to Baltic-language material is evident from the fact that its word index—which is not yet actually complete—contains about three thousand Lithuanian words, nearly two thousand Latvian words, and about five hundred Old Prussian words. The dictionary explains the origins of Baltic place names found in old monuments of the Russian language, and examines the names of Baltic tribes, some personal names, and other material (cf. Вили I, 200; Витолки I, 205; Деремела I, 342; Жемо итв I, 418; жмуда I, 428; Латгола II, 19; латыши II, 19; Ливики II, 40; Литва II, 46; Неман II, 211, etc.).

For Lithuanian readers, the question of the spread of Baltic words in Russian is undoubtedly of interest. To shed light on this question, M. Fasmer’s dictionary also devotes

¹ Russisches etymologisches Wörterbuch von Max Vasmer, Erster Band: A—K, Heidelberg, 1953, 712+XLVII S.; Zweiter Band: L—Ssuda, Heidelberg, 1955, 712 S.; Dritter Band: Sta—Y, Heidelberg, 1958, 697 S.

319

considerable space. Since the dictionary in question is fairly difficult for Lithuanian readers to access, we will briefly survey here the words which, in M. Fasmer’s opinion—and most often in that of other linguists as well—entered Russian dialects and various written monuments from the Baltic languages.

апуд ‘grain chest (in a granary)’. The word occurs in Belarusian and Polish and derives from Lithuanian aruodas, Latvian arūods (I, 27, III, 511).

баланда 1. ‘a kind of orache’, 2. ‘inferior variety of hemp’, 3. ‘beet greens’; found in the Ryazan and Tambov regions, it probably derives from Lithuanian balánda (I, 45).

вайнник ‘a kind of woman’s head ornament’; occurs in western Russian dialects and probably derives from Lithuanian vainikas (I, 165).

валанда ‘a sluggish, slow person’, валандать ‘to work slowly and sluggishly, waste time, delay’; derives from Lithuanian valandà, Eastern Latvian voluda (I, 166).

ванчес, ванчос ‘oak beams for shipbuilding’; in older written monuments the form ванчус is used. In B. Karskis’s opinion, the word derives from Lithuanian vančos ‘beam for securing an anchor’, Latvian vancis ‘beam for locating an anchor’ (I, 168)².

вентерь ‘bag net, fish sack’; the forms вентель, вентель, вятерь, вятерь also occur, as do Ukrainian в’ater and Polish więcierz, więcierz, wiecierka ‘fish trap’. It was borrowed at various times from Lithuanian vėteris and Latvian vēnteris (probably a Curonianism). The Russian forms without root n were borrowed earlier (I, 183, 245).

вытум ‘a kind of barge on the Niemen’, вутума ‘a kind of river craft on the Niemen and Pripet (Minsk, Grodno, Kaunas)’. The word is difficult to explain; perhaps it can be connected with Lithuanian vytinis ‘woven’ (I, 205).

зупца ‘brome grass’; used in western Russian dialects, it derives from Lithuanian girsa ‘brome grass’. Polish girsa ‘rye’ was also borrowed from Lithuanian (I, 270).

дёгомъ, genitive дёгма ‘birch tar’, Ukrainian дёготь, genitive дѣха, Belarusian дѣхоч, Old Czech dehet, genitive dehte, Slovak deht, Polish dziegieć. Attempts have been made to connect this Slavic word for tar as an old cognate with Lithuanian degutas, Latvian deguts, and further with Lithuanian degù, dègti, dãgas ‘harvest’. However, Lithuanian dėgti corresponds precisely to Old Church Slavonic жегу and Russian жгу; therefore, the Slavic word for tar may be considered a borrowing from the Baltic languages. K. Būga and J. Mikola held this view. The author of the new etymological dictionary of Polish, F. Slawski³, holds the same view (I, 335, III, 514).

дайлуда ‘Baumeister’, used by Skorina, is frequently found in sixteenth-century Belarusian documents; it derives from Lithuanian dailýda (I, 358).

дырван ‘Brachfeld’ occurs in western Russian dialects and is also used in Polish (dyrwan); it derives from Lithuanian dirvònas (I, 386).

джало ‘Abgabe, Steuer’ is frequently found in Belarusian documents; it derives from Lithuanian *dėklas ‘Auferlegung, Steuer’: dėti (I, 387).

ёня ‘Getreidedarre’, used around Smolensk and in Ukrainian and Belarusian (жёна, жоўна; an older form is жёја), may be related to Lithuanian javėna and the like.

* In Lithuanian dialects this word occurs with the meaning ‘hook’: vančas (Upyna), vančys (Radviliškis), vančkaras (Šiauliai). It may have entered Lithuanian from Latvian, and the Latvians probably got it from German.

² Cf. F. Slawski, Słownik etymologiczny języka polskiego, 1, 194, Kraków, 1952—1956.

320

However, since this word is used by Slavs living next to the Balts, some linguists consider it a borrowing from Lithuanian jāuga (I, 389).

ендова, яндова ‘bauchiges metallenes oder irdenes Gefäss; Kanne für Bier’, Old Russian jandova ‘shallow bowl with a spout’, Belarusian jandova. It is considered a borrowing from Lithuanian indauja, indas (I, 399, III, 514).

жлукто ‘Fass zum Wäschelaugen, das Wäscheweichen’, жлукта, Belarusian žlūkto, Ukrainian žlūkto ‘tub, vat’, Polish žłukto. Borrowed from Lithuanian žlūklas (žlūgtas) ‘Waschlauge, Fass zum Wäschelaugen’ (I, 427).

клуня ‘Art Scheune, Riege’, Ukrainian klūnia, Belarusian klūnia, Polish klunia, klonia ‘barn made of spruce logs, sleeping place’. This word probably derives from Lithuanian klūonas, Latvian kluōns: Lithuanian klóti (I, 573—4).

ковш ‘Schöpfkelle, Schaumlöffel, Trinkgeschirr’, Ukrainian kovš, Belarusian kovš, Old Russian kovšb. Borrowed from Lithuanian káusas, Latvian kauss. This Baltic word has entered Finno-Ugric (Finnish kauha) and some Germanic languages (Middle Low German kouwesse, Low German kausse, Old Danish kouse, Danish kaus, Swedish kaus, kás) (I, 586, 679).

кувшин ‘Kanne’, кувшин (assimilation), Ukrainian kušyn, Belarusian kušyn. This word may derive from Lithuanian *kausinas, which may have existed alongside káusas. For the formation, cf. Lithuanian vaikšnas: vaikas (I, 679).

кыльша ‘Hüfte, Oberschenkel’ also occurs as кульжа, Belarusian kūlša, Polish kulsza; borrowed from Lithuanian kūlsė, kūlsis (I, 690).

курпы, курпины ‘Bastschuhe’, Polish kurp, kurpia; the words were borrowed from the Baltic languages, cf. Lithuanian kūrpė, Latvian kurpe, Old Prussian kurpe (I, 701—2).

лаума ‘Art Hexe’, used around Smolensk; the word derives from Lithuanian laumė (laimė) ‘Art Fee’, Latvian lauma ‘Hexe, Zauberin’ (II, 19).

логиса ‘Haufen Zweige, Äste, Späne die beim Holzfällen zurückbleiben’, borrowed from Lithuanian laužas (II, 51).

лускапт ‘Fetzen’, occurs around Kursk. The word is of uncertain origin; it may sometimes be a borrowing from Baltic, cf. Lithuanian lūskatai ‘Fetzen, Lappen’ (II, 71).

пакля ‘Hede, Werg’, Belarusian pakulle, Polish pakul-y, borrowed from Lithuanian pakulos: kūlti, Latvian pakulas (II, 303).

парсук ‘Borg, verschnittener Eber’, found around Ryazan; in western Russian dialects паршук, парсюк ‘Eber’ occurs, Polish parsiuk. The words were borrowed from Lithuanian paršiukas (II, 317—18).

пелед ‘Schutzdach über e. Getreideschober’, пеледа, пельда, пелед, пеледь, пелядь, widely used in Russian dialects (Yaroslavl, Vologda, Moscow, Kaluga, Oryol, Kostroma). These words derive from Lithuanian pelūdė: pėlūs + dėti ‘Spreuscheune, Spreukammer’, Latvian pelūde (II, 332, 333).

пуня ‘Spreukammer, Scheune, Heuboden’, a word fairly widely used in Russian and Belarusian dialects, derives from Lithuanian pūnė, pūnė ‘Stall’, Latvian pūne ‘Scheune’. Some linguists (A. Brückner, J. Endzelin, and others) believe, on the contrary, that the Balts borrowed this word from the Slavs; however, in M. Vasmer’s view, the word’s geographical distribution does not support this claim (II, 464—5).

⁴ E. Frenkel (Litauisches etymologisches Wörterbuch, 347, Heidelberg-Göttingen, 1955—59) groundlessly regards this word as an old cognate of Lithuanian láužas.

321

nymel ‘kleingewachsener Mensch, Knirps’, nympukes ‘klein’. Occurs around Smolensk; may be borrowed from Lithuanian pamplys ‘Dickbauch’ (II, 465).

nympa ‘Art Suppe aus Gemüse, Graupen u. Milch’, nympo ‘Mehljauche für das Vieh’, nympa, ‘Weizengrütze’, Ukrainian pūtra, Belarusian pūtra. Borrowed from Lithuanian putra ‘Grütze’, Latvian putra: punti, pūsti, putā. Finnish putro, puoro ‘Grütze’ is also, in M. Vasmer’s view, probably a borrowing from Baltic (II, 469).

резины ‘Art Korb zum Tragen von Heu’, розивны, Belarusian rėdžginy, rėginy, rėviny, borrowed from Lithuanian rezginės (rėzginės), rėzgis ‘Geflecht, Korb, geflochtene Trage’ (II, 506).

peū, gen. рэя, рея ‘Darrscheune’, рея (Grodno, Minsk, Smolensk). This word entered Russian, as well as Baltic, from Finno-Ugric (Estonian rei, Finnish riihi). However, it may also have entered Belarusian through the Baltic languages (II, 507).

рожец ‘Unglückshäher, Garrulus infaustus’, generally considered a borrowing from Baltic, cf. Lithuanian ražis ‘Tannenhäher’ (< *ranžis), Latvian ruoze, ruozis (II, 535).

румуть ‘besorgt machen, beunruhigen’, pynum(cя) мне ‘it seems to me, it worries me’, puna ‘Heimweh’, румшый ‘besorgt’, Ukrainian rūpyty, rūplu ‘erwünscht sein’, Belarusian rūpic ‘sorgen’, rupota ‘Sorge’. Lithuanian rūpėti may sometimes be the source of these words; their distribution in particular would support this assumption (II, 548–9).

свиренъ-рна ‘Getreidescheune’, свирон, Belarusian swiren, Polish świren, świrnia, świernia ‘Speicher’. A word that is difficult to explain. Some linguists (J. Otrębski, E. Karski, F. Miklošič) consider it a borrowing from Lithuanian svīrnas (II, 593–4).

сигла ‘Morast, Moorgrund’, probably a borrowing from Baltic, cf. Latvian sīlis, ‘kleiner Morast in der Mitte e. Waldes, einer Wiese oder Weide’ (II, 622).

скупо, скупда ‘Getreidehaufen, Heuschober’, Ukrainian skýrta, stýra, Belarusian skirta. These words were borrowed from Baltic, cf. Lithuanian stirta ‘Haufen Heu’, Latvian stira ‘dachförmiges Dörrgatter für Sommerkorn auf d. Felde’. From Russian, this Baltic borrowing later also entered Erzya Mordvin — skirda ‘Getreideschober auf d. Felde’ (II, 638);

сколба ‘Tabakstampfer, Stössel’, occurs around Tver; it may sometimes be a borrowing from Baltic, cf. Lithuanian skalbei, skalbių (II, 642).

твань ‘Morast, sumpfige Stelle’, квань, тванья. The word is fairly widely used in Russian dialects and occurs in Ukrainian (tvan’ ‘Schlamm’) and Belarusian (tvań ‘Schlamm’). Borrowed from Baltic; cf. Lithuanian tvānas, Latvian tvans ‘Dampf’: Lithuanian tvānti (III, 84–5).

топра ‘Zwischenraum, Fach eines Heuschobers, Abstand zwischen 2 Pfählen’, from Lithuanian tarpas (III, 127).

шакала, шакола ‘Buchweizenhülsen’, шаколина, borrowed from Lithuanian šakalai, Latvian sakali (III, 366).

шешок,-шка ‘Iltis’, Belarusian šešōk, Polish szeszek, from Lithuanian šeškas, Latvian sesks: Lithuanian šeškė ‘cacare’. A similar name for the polecat is also used in some Finno-Ugric languages. However, the word’s geographical distribution shows that the Slavs received it from the Balts (III, 395–6).

шкубунять ‘verfolgen’, occurs around Smolensk, borrowed from Lithuanian skūbinti, skūbinti ‘beeilen’ (III, 408).

шнурделок 1. ‘Kreisel’, 2. ‘flinker Junge’, used around Smolensk; a Baltic loanword, cf. Latvian spurdelis ‘Kreisel; unruhiger, unbändiger Mensch’, Lithuanian spurdėti (III, 427).

322

шула ‘Zaunpfahl’, шула, Ukrainian šila, Belarusian šila. Some linguists consider this word related to Lithuanian šulas, while others (E. Karskis, Pr. Skardžius) believe it to be borrowed from Lithuanian (III, 435).

янтарь ‘Bernstein’, Old Russian jentarь. From Russian, this name for amber passed into other Slavic languages: Ukrainian jantār, Czech jantar, Serbo-Croatian jàntār, Slovenian jàntar. The word in question entered Russian from Baltic; cf. Lithuanian gintāras, Latvian dzītars (III, 491).

A very interesting phenomenon is that some words from the Baltic languages entered Russian dialects through Finno-Ugric languages. Here they are:

игуна, игна, хигна ‘Lenkseil am Rentiergespann’, from Finnish, Olonets hihna ‘Riemen’, itself from Lithuanian šišna (I, 267).

игвас, ирвас ‘männliches Renntier im 2. Lebensjahr’, from Finnish hirvas ‘Renntierochs’. The Finnish word probably derives from Baltic *širvas; cf. Old Prussian sirwis ‘Reh’ (I, 270).

корбачь ‘Bastschuhe, Schuhe aus Birkenrinde’, borrowed from Finnish kurpunen, plural kurpuset ‘Schuhe aus ungegerbtem Leder’. The Finnish word was borrowed from Baltic; cf. Lithuanian kurpė (I, 623).

лох ‘abgemagerter Lachs nach der Laichzeit in den Flüssen’, from Finnish, Olonets, Karelian lohi ‘Lachs’. This word entered the Finno-Ugric languages from Baltic; cf. Lithuanian lašis (II, 62).

лухма 1. ‘Bucht, Meerbusen’, 2. ‘seichte mit Gras bewachsene Stelle im See’. The first meaning was probably borrowed from Lappish luokta, luxta, the second from Vepsian luht ‘feuchte Wiese, Pfütze’, Finnish, Karelian luhta, Estonian luht, which derive from Lithuanian lūkštas ‘Rohrgras’, lūkštinė, lūkštynė ‘schilfbewachsener Teich od. Sumpf’ (II, 72).

печка, решка ‘ungesäuerter Fladen aus Mehl und zerstampfter Fichtenrinde’, borrowed from Karelian rieska, Finnish rieska ‘ungesäuertes Gerstenbrot, Pfannkuchen’. This word entered the Baltic-Finnic languages from Baltic; cf. Lithuanian prėska ‘ungesäuert’ (II, 514).

пода ‘uneben gefrorener, feuchter Erdboden’, позва, повка, from Karelian rouda, Finnish routa ‘hart gefrorener Erdboden’. The Baltic-Finnic words derive from Lithuanian gruodas (II, 526).

себра ‘communal work, a cooperative of workers’, сябра, probably derives from Vepsian šebr- (šebra-) ‘joint work’, Finnish seura ‘society, retinue’. The Baltic Finns probably received the word in question from the Baltic peoples; cf. Lithuanian: sėbras ‘companion, participant’, Latvian sēbrs ‘neighbor, friend, relative’ (II, 599).

All the words mentioned are found chiefly in northwestern Russian dialects. The Russian word шупна ‘hen with spread feathers’, whose origin is unclear to M. Fasmer, and Belarusian šūrpa ‘curly-haired person, term of endearment’ (III, 438), which is widely used in Lithuanian and has a reliable etymology, should likewise be considered a borrowing from the Baltic languages.⁵

As mentioned, in explaining the origins of various Russian words M. Fasmer makes extensive use of Baltic material, drawing chiefly on the works of K. Būga, J. Endzelīns, R. Trautmann, A. Brückner, and others. Material from the Baltic languages is re-

⁵ Cf. A. Sabaliauskas, Lietuvos TSR Mokslų akademijos darbai, series A, 1, 123—4, Vilnius, 1960. As a recently published manuscript shows, K. Būga too regarded Russian шупна as a borrowing from Lithuanian šūrpa; cf. K. Būga, Rinktiniai raštai, 2, 622, Vilnius, 1959.

323

drawn upon fairly successfully; however, its use in its entirety was hampered by the fact that the complete academic dictionary of the Lithuanian language had not yet been published, and, moreover, when M. Fasmer was writing his dictionary, he could scarcely yet make use of E. Fraenkel’s etymological dictionary of the Lithuanian language. Here we shall try to point out a few etymological details not reflected in M. Fasmer’s dictionary, as well as inaccuracies of various kinds that we have noticed.

Among other words, Russian грим ‘plaice’ (I, 313) is compared with Lithuanian graumenys ‘large primeval forests’. Lithuanian graumenys, griaumenys ‘a dense, large forest crowded with fallen trees’, griaumedis ‘a tree fallen in the forest’⁶ should probably be connected with Lithuanian griūti. Thus Russian грим and Lithuanian graumenys should have nothing to do with one another.

Lithuanian grįdyti ‘to go, walk’ should perhaps not be compared with Russian грядѣ, грясти (I, 315), on account of the root vocalism⁷.

Discussing Russian двохать (I, 332), it is stated, following J. Endzelīns, that Lithuanian dvėkas is a borrowing from Slavic; however, it is entirely possible to regard this word as native: neither the phonetics nor the meaning of the word in question argues against such a conclusion⁸.

Lithuanian dūdė may also be a native word; to assert categorically (II, 336) that it is a borrowing from Belarusian is too bold⁹.

Lithuanian tūlės (I, 417) should probably be connected not with žalias, žolė (* žultis > tul-ės), but with Lithuanian tūlėti ‘to become soaked with water, swell, become watery, soak; absorb water’, Latvian tūlēt ‘to swell’, tūlzna ‘blister’¹⁰.

Lithuanian kārpa ‘carp’ (I, 535) was borrowed not from Old High German, but from Polish¹¹.

E. Fraenkel seems to have rightly observed that Russian камать ‘to roll, turn’ (I, 540) should be distinguished from качать ‘to rock’ (I, 543), the latter being connected with Lithuanian kėbautis ‘to rock oneself’, kėkos ‘swing’¹².

Russian допоб ‘box, sieve’ should not be connected (I, 363) with Lithuanian darbas ‘leafwork’, since this Lithuanian word entered linguistic literature from J. Bretkūnas’s writings through a misunderstanding. J. Bretkūnas translated the third component of M. Luther’s compound Palmenlaubwerk with the word darbas; thus the Lithuanian word meant here is darbas ‘work, deed’¹³.

In explaining the origin of Russian клемть ‘storeroom, storage shed’ (I, 569), Lithuanian klaimas ‘barn’ is unnecessarily compared here; it should be connected with Lithuanian klōti (klōimas < klōj-mas). Nor should atslaimas, atslaimas ‘forecourt’ be compared here, as it is cognate with Lithuanian šlūoti (atslāimas < atslāvimas)’¹⁴.

Lithuanian kārbas is a borrowing from Slavic, so it should not be connected with Russian короб ‘basket, box, woven carriage’ (I, 629) as an ancient cognate¹⁵.

⁶ Cf. Lietuvių kalbos žodynas, ed. K. Ulvydas, 3, 575, Vilnius, 1956.

⁷ Cf. E. Fraenkel, Litauisches etymologisches Wörterbuch, 171, Heidelberg-Göttingen, 1956—1959 (hereafter — LEWb.).

⁸ Cf. E. Fraenkel, LEWb., 81, 109.

⁹ Cf. Pr. Skardžius, Archivum Philologicum, 4, 154, Kaunas, 1933.

¹⁰ Cf. K. Būga, Kalba ir senovė, 295, Kaunas, 1922; Rinktiniai raštai, 2, 320.

¹¹ Cf. E. Fraenkel, LEWb., 222.

¹² Cf. E. Fraenkel, LEWb., 236.

¹³ Cf. E. Fraenkel, LEWb., 82—3.

¹⁴ Cf. E. Fraenkel, LEWb., 22—3, 275.

¹⁵ Cf. E. Fraenkel, LEWb., 220.

324

The Russian kūdelė ‘flax prepared for spinning’ (I, 680) cannot be connected with Lithuanian kėdėnti, since, as E. Fraenkel¹⁶ correctly observed, the vocalism of these words does not permit it.

Lithuanian kaūlyti seems better connected with Lithuanian kãutis, as E. Fraenkel¹⁷ does, rather than with Russian кулик ‘snipe, Scolopax’ (I, 688).

Lithuanian kùrti ‘to light a fire, to heat’ can hardly be distinguished from kùrti ‘to build, found, erect’¹⁸. Thus, the Lithuanian word mentioned should have nothing to do with Russian курить ‘to smoke’ (I, 700).

Lithuanian laidõkas (II, 8) may also be a borrowing from Polish¹⁹.

The Russian name for a Latvian, замуш (II, 19), probably does not derive from the nominative plural form latvieši; the formant -шш is a suffix also found in other common nouns²⁰.

Lithuanian loma ‘a low-lying spot in a field’, Latvian lāma ‘puddle, pit’ (II, 56) should nevertheless be connected with Lithuanian lamanti, lėmti, lùmti²¹.

Lithuanian liūtis (II, 79; M. Fasmer’s dictionary gives lutis) is more likely a native word than a borrowing from Slavic, as Pr. Skardžius²² and E. Fraenkel²³ maintained.

Lithuanian minia seems best connected with Lithuanian minti, as J. Endzelīns²⁴ does, a view also supported by E. Fraenkel²⁵. In that case, this Lithuanian word would have nothing to do with Russian много ‘much’ (II, 143).

The comparison of Russian мыслить ‘to think’ with Lithuanian maũsti ‘to long fervently, to yearn for something’ (II, 184) raises many semantic doubts.

Regarding Russian Неман ‘the Memel River’ (II, 211), K. Būga’s explanation²⁶ is not cited, in which the Nemunas is connected with Lithuanian neminė, nėmuogė. Moreover, the connection of the river’s name with Samogitian nùmas ‘house’ should be identified as an unfounded etymology; although very naïve, it is fairly widespread. For example, even the “Dictionary of Geographical Names,” published in 1958, states: “Название литовское: немас — дом; намин — домашний; домашняя, наша, т. е. литовская река”²⁷.

Lithuanian narõvytis ‘to be defiant’ cannot be compared with Russian норов ‘custom, usage, habit’ (II, 227), because Lithuanian narõvytis is a borrowing from Slavic²⁸.

For Russian пенька ‘hemp’ (II, 335), it should be noted that K. Būga, in explaining the word’s origin, connects it with Lithuanian pinti (пенька < *pini̯ka)²⁹.

¹⁶ Cf. E. Fraenkel, LEWb., 233.

¹⁷ Cf. E. Fraenkel, LEWb., 230–1.

¹⁸ Cf. K. Būga, Kalba ir senovė, 105; Rinktiniai raštai, 2, 128; E. Fraenkel, LEWb., 319.

¹⁹ Cf. E. Fraenkel, LEWb., 330.

²⁰ Cf. J. Otrębski, Lingua Posnaniensis, 2, 72—3, Poznań, 1950.

²¹ Cf. E. Fraenkel, LEWb., 338, 355, 385.

²² Cf. Pr. Skardžius, Lietuvių kalbos žodžių daryba, 108, 327.

²³ Cf. E. Fraenkel, LEWb., 382—3.

²⁴ Cf. J. Endzelīns, Filologu biedrības raksti, 12, 174, Rīgā, 1932; Senprūšu valoda, 224. Rīgā, 1943.

²⁵ Cf. E. Fraenkel, LEWb., 453, 455.

²⁶ Cf. K. Būga, Kalba ir senovė, 190, 244—9; Rinktiniai raštai, 2, 213—4, 280—1.

²⁷ М. С. Бондарский, Словарь географических названий, 224, Москва, 1958.

²⁸ Cf. E. Fraenkel, LEWb., 484.

²⁹ Cf. K. Būga, Archivum Philologicum, 1, 37, Kaunas, 1930.

325

It would be inappropriate to compare Russian пупца ‘Vogel’ (II, 458) with Lithuanian pautas ‘Ei, Hode’, Latvian pāuts, and Prussian pawtte, since these words are to be connected with the Indo-European root *pū- ‘blasen, wehen, anschwellen (machen)’: Lithuanian pūsti, pūsti, etc.³⁰

Lithuanian rāvas ‘Graben’ and Prussian rawys are most likely loanwords from Polish³¹; they should therefore not be connected with Russian poe (II, 525).

In K. Būga’s opinion, Lithuanian kvietys was borrowed not from Gothic, as the dictionary states (III, 284), but from Scandinavian³². K. Būga specifically emphasized that Lithuanian kvietys could not have been borrowed from Gothic because of its root vocalism. Moreover, the dictionary’s author is not entirely consistent in discussing the relationship between *svēro and *kvēro. In one place (II, 591) he writes: „Die Zusammengehörigkeit von *svēro und *kvēro (s. uem) ist unsicher (gegen Vaillant RES. 13, 110 ff.)“, while elsewhere, discussing the word uem (III, 284), he writes: „Bei Annahme eines idg. Gutturalwechsels wäre weitere Beziehung zu c̑em (s.d.).“

The dictionary also contains inaccuracies of a different kind.

It states (I, 281): lit. dvigubas, trigubas ‘doppelt, einfach’; the word trigubas should be translated as ‘dreifach’.

gruménti (I, 310) is a Lithuanian word, not a Prussian one.

dižū, diežti, dižti (I, 336) should be corrected to dyžù, diežti, dyžti³³.

desimis (I, 346) is widely used in contemporary Lithuanian as well, so it should be labeled lit., not alit. (Old Lithuanian).

drabažas (I, 368) is a Latvian word, not a Lithuanian one.

The Lithuanian word vasara ‘Sommer’ should be stressed vãsara, not vasarà (I, 192).

Lithuanian vartai ‘Tor, Pforte’ (I, 229) should be stressed not vartai, but vãrtai.

Lithuanian gìlškčioja ‘es geht das Gerücht’ (I, 286) should be corrected to gãlškčioja.

Latvian dvãsà ‘Hauch, Atem’ (I, 332) should be corrected to dvãsą.

Lithuanian strãzdas ‘Drossel’ (I, 372) should be corrected to strãzdas.

K. Būga, RFV 67, 240, apparently says nothing about Russian железа ‘Drüse’ (I, 415) and Lithuanian gėlėžuones.

Lithuanian žliūktas, žliūktis ‘Waschlauge, Fass zum Wäschlaugen’ (I, 427), as well as the other Lithuanian words of this root mentioned here, should be written with g.

It should be written žarijos plural ‘glühende Kohlen’ [glowing coals], not žaryjos (I, 443).

It should be žambėju, žambėti ‘keimen’ [to sprout], not žãmbėju.

The Latvian place name should be written Cēsis G. Cēsu, not Cēzis (I, 552).

K. Būga, RFV 70,100, gives Lithuanian balāzyti ‘schelten’ [to scold], not balãsyti (I, 45).

K. Būga mentions Lithuanian bliaūzyti ‘Unsinn reden’ [to talk nonsense] in RFV 70,101, not blianūzyti (I, 96).

K. Būga discusses the relationship between Russian кула ‘Leistenbruch, Knorren am Baum’ [hernia, knot on a tree] (I, 556) and Lithuanian kúla ‘Auswuchs, Knorren’ [protuberance, knot] not in RFV 71, 44, but on page 54.

K. Būga compares Russian ком ‘Klumpen’ [lump] (I, 606) with Lithuanian kamúolys and related forms not in RFV 65, 314, but on page 316.

K. Būga was very skeptical about his earlier explanation of the origin of Lithuanian krēpšas ‘Korb, Tasche’ [basket, bag], in which the word is linked with Russian коров ‘Korb, Schachtel, geflochtener Kutschkasten’ [basket, box, wicker carriage body]³⁴; therefore it was not worth relying on it here (I, 629).

³⁰ Compare J. Endzelīns, Senprūšu valoda, 221; E. Fraenkel, LEWb., 554.

³¹ Compare E. Fraenkel, LEWb., 709; J. Endzelīns, Senprūšu valoda, 238.

³² Compare K. Būga, Kalba ir senovė, 68, 206; Rinktiniai raštai, 2, 89, 230.

³³ Compare E. Fraenkel, LEWb., 98.

³⁴ Compare K. Būga, Kalba ir senovė, 27—8; Rinktiniai raštai, 2, 44.

326

Lith. krãlikas ‘Kaninchen’ should be stressed not krãlikas (I, 666), but krãlikas.

Lith. lóva ‘Bettstelle’ (II, 2), lópas ‘Flick, Lappen’ (II, 14) should be written lóva, lópas.

Lith. balandis should be stressed balandìs, not balandis (II, 22).

In Latvian there is the word linte ‘Band’, but not lint (II, 31).

K. Būga explains the origin of the place name Лепель (II, 31) not by RS 6,30, but by 36.

The word ligà ‘Krankheit’ is used in Lithuanian, not lygà (II, 40).

The relationship between Rus. лу́ста́ ‘Scheibe, Schnitte Brot’ (II, 71) and Lith. lùstas ‘Schnitte Brot’ is discussed by K. Būga not in RFV 65, 316, but on page 318.

Lith. mėlyna (II, 91) is the feminine form of the adjective, whereas the noun ‘Fleck’ should be mėlynė.

The metathesis in Lithuanian words corresponding to Rus. во́рона: во́рон is várna: vãrnas, not vãrnas (II, 219).

The word nūnai ‘nun, jetzt’ is used in Lithuanian, not munai (II, 232).

Lith. ne galėti ‘unpässlich sein’ (II, 252) should be written negalėti.

The pronoun añs is used in standard Lithuanian, so it should not be marked alit. (II, 268), whereas the form añs is dialectal.

Lith. mintìs ‘Gedanke, Idee, Meinung’ (II, 308) is also a standard-language word, so alit. is inappropriate here.

Lith. spùrdėti ‘rütteln, flattern’ (II, 413) should be corrected to spuradėti.

It should be written sėgti, segù, segiaũ ‘hefte’, not sėrti (II, 413).

Lith. juosmuõ (II, 423) is used predominantly in the sense ‘Lende’, not ‘Gürtel’.

The Samogitians use the form pūraĩ ‘Winterweizen’, not puraĩ (II, 474).

Rūõbs „Kerbe“, „ribóz“ ‘kerben’ (II, 541) are Latvian, not Lithuanian, words.

Lith. sėbsnis ‘Klafter’ (II, 568) should be corrected to siekšnis.

The forms šùolis ‘Galopp’ and šúolias ‘im Galopp’ are used in literary Lithuanian, not šolỹs, šolias (II, 571).

K. Būga, RFV 75, 143, mentions the Lithuanian word per-sėda ‘Fischwehr’, but not per-sėdas (II, 602).

Lat. saime ‘Hausgesinde, Familie’ should be written sãime, not sáime (II, 609).

Lith. siẽti, siejà ‘binde’ (II, 619) are forms of the literary language, not of the eastern dialects.

The singular accusative of Lith. šalnà ‘Frost’ should be šalną, not šãlną (II, 657).

The form mìrtis, mirtìes ‘Tod’ (II, 672) is used in literary Lithuanian and in many dialects, so there was no need to mark it alit. here. The Daukša cited by M. Fasmer used the form mìrtis³⁵.

Regarding the origin of Russian сма́до ‘Herde’ (III, 2), R. Trautmann discusses it not in Bsl 230 ff., but on pp. 280 ff.

The note ostilt. beside the word ztė (III, 81) is unnecessary, since this word is widely used in other Lithuanian dialects as well.

Lith. ỹras (III, 110), as a noun, is used in the sense ‘Morast’, and as an adjective in the sense ‘rein’; only the word ỹrė. is used in the sense ‘Brei’.

According to the spelling used in the dictionary, one should write siūti, siuvu, not siūvù ‘nahe’ (III, 402).

The stress should be on skambėti, skambù ‘klingen’, not skambò (III, 448).

³⁵ Cf. Pr. Skardžius, Daukšos akcentologija, 116, 118, 245, 254. Kaunas, 1935.

327

The dictionary’s author could also be criticized for the way he writes Prussian words: he does not consistently adhere to the original spelling, and sometimes other kinds of errors occur as well.

Pr. wissa- ‘all’ (I, 192) is better written wissą, since this word survives not only as a component of a compound.

Pr. waldūns ‘Erbe’, but not waldums (I, 219).

The nominative form attested in the monuments of the Prussian language is asmas ‘der achte’, not asmas (I, 232).

The Elbing vocabulary gives Udro ‘Otter’ (word 667), not wudro (I, 239).

The word Sturdis ‘Bicke’, found only once in the monuments of the Prussian language, is written as scurdis in one place (I, 242; II, 283; this is the usual emendation of the word’s spelling)³⁶, and as skurdis elsewhere (II, 647). Moreover, its meaning is ‘Bicke’ in one place, ‘Bicke, Haue’ in another, and ‘Hacke, Erdhacke’ in yet another.

The Elbing vocabulary gives Kore ‘Dohle’ (word 724). The spelling of this word, it seems, has been emended in as many as three different ways: koce³⁷, kole³⁸, kose³⁹. Each emendation is associated with a different etymological interpretation; in this case, therefore, it is essential to give the original spelling rather than rely solely on K. Būga’s interpretation (I, 255).

The Elbing vocabulary gives Gudde ‘Busch’ (word 587), not gude (I, 264).

It should be written swaigstan, not swāigstan (I, 447).

Pr. semme (I, 453) should be emended to semmē.

Pr. kelan ‘Rad’ is found as an independent word in the Elbing vocabulary (word 295), so it is better to cite it rather than ‘-kelan in malūnakelan’ (I, 598).

The Elbing vocabulary gives curwis ‘Ochse’ (word 672), not kurwis (I, 630).

S. Grunau’s vocabulary gives lynno ‘Flachs’ (word 31), not linno (II, 30).

It should be noted that Pr. lasasso ‘Lachs’ (II, 61) is an emendation of Lalasso (Elbing vocab., word 563).

The word prūtis ‘Preusse’ (II, 451) is not found in the monuments of the Prussian language. Only the words prūtiskan, prūtiskai are attested there.

S. Grunau’s vocabulary gives pawtte ‘Eier’ (word 74), not pawte (II, 458).

Pr. sadinma ‘stellen’ (II, 567) should be corrected to saddinna.

Pr. warnay-ropo ‘Würger, Lanius’ (II, 644) should be written warnaycopo.

The Elbing glossary gives Sliwaytos ‘Pflaumen’ (word 619), not slywātois (II, 660).

Pr. snaigis ‘Schnee’ (II, 680) should be written snaygis.

Pr. stiklo (III, 9) is better written sticlo.

The Elbing glossary gives Soanxti ‘Funken’ (word 35), not soanxtis (III, 54).

Pr. thewis ‘Väterchen’ (III, 81) is more accurately written in the original orthography as zhewis.

Pr. iau ‘schon’ (III, 176) is more accurately written iau.

Pr. iuse ‘Fleischbruhe’ (III, 195) should be written iuse.

Pr. skīstan ‘rein’ (III, 343) is better written skijstan.

The abbreviations are not used entirely consistently in the dictionary. In one place it has alit., elsewhere (II, 672) — allip.; in one place — abulg., elsewhere — abg. (II, 52, 53). It occurs

³⁶ Cf. R. Trautmann, Die altpreussischen Sprachdenkmäler, 86, Göttingen, 1910; J. Endzelins, Senprūšu valoda, 250.

³⁷ Cf. R. Trautmann, Die altpreussischen Sprachdenkmäler, 92.

³⁸ Cf. K. Būga, Rinktiniai raštai 1, 439 (RFV. 71, 107), Vilnius, 1958.

³⁹ Cf. J. Endzelins, Senprūšu valoda, 196.

328

inconsistencies in transliteration, for example, in one place it is written ukr. p’áter (I, 183), and elsewhere ukr. yjater (I, 245). However, similar inconsistencies are very rare, and they cannot detract from the value of this monumental work.

Comparing M. Fasmer’s work with the dictionaries of A. Preobrazhensky and E. Berneker, we see that a major step forward has been made. In his review, Prof. V. Machek called this work a “magnum opus”⁴⁰; Prof. A. Beleckis, speaking about M. Fasmer’s dictionary at the plenary session of the Dictionary Commission of the Department of Language and Literature of the USSR Academy of Sciences, observed that preparing such a dictionary single-handedly in our time is a kind of feat⁴¹. The work mentioned has fully and justifiably earned these and many similar compliments. However, the appearance of M. Fasmer’s dictionary by no means removes the task facing Soviet linguistics of preparing, in the future, a new etymological dictionary of the Russian language that covers the much greater wealth of Russian vocabulary, makes fuller use of dialectological and historical material, and more rigorously distinguishes it from facts of the standard Russian literary language. But that is a task not for one or two people, but for an appropriate team. Soviet lexicography has achieved excellent results. Let us hope that in the near future its achievements will be further enhanced by an etymological dictionary of the Russian language, in which material from the Baltic languages will, of course, find its proper place.

A NEW ETYMOLOGICAL DICTIONARY OF THE RUSSIAN LANGUAGE

А. И. САБАЛЯУСКАС

Abstract

The article reviews M. Fasmer’s etymological dictionary of Russian. The main focus is on material from the Baltic languages. Baltic borrowings found in Russian are identified. Some doubtful etymologies and inaccuracies are noted.

⁴⁰ Plg. V. Machek, Slavia, 2, 280, Praha, 1959.

⁴¹ Cf. Questions of Linguistics, 2, 158, Moscow, 1960.

329